What view of justice is "carnal" and what is not?

[Skandelon]

That is correct...I reject both terms.....they are outside the realm of scripture ,or scriptural teaching.

So, I guess you reject the term 'Trinity' too?

There is no free will...it does not exist...so I reject this out of hand,and for the most part, i try to avoid these discussions as i believe they are unbiblical to start with......

Yet, Calvin and most Calvinists affirm free will (compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will), but to each his own.

Free moral agent...yes ....free will no...

Where is the term 'free moral agent' in the bible? Oh no, you are starting to get too philosophical.

 

[Iconoclast]

Okay, I admit it; I've been given a lesson by Skandelon in how to be "humilified" ...is that a word?

But, I still think "Calvinist phikosophy" was funny. :smilewinkgrin:

it is kind of funny...if you notice the k and l are next to each other on the keyboard....looks as if i missed:laugh: JF will be proud of me:laugh:

You don’t seem to realize that the very system you use to interpret the scriptures within comes from reasoning through philosophical principles about what those scriptures mean

No Benjamin...the "system comes from pastors and teachers who upon examination of the texts...put forth what the texts say....not what you in a scripturally restricted view ....would prefer them to say...perhaps because you cannot reconcile what the texts actually mean.
If you are wrong with Adam and the fall...you are going to be wrong in many other areas of theology.. That does not make you a bad person, just mistaken.
Some of your smug comments might be another story however.That is a seperate discussion however.

 

[Iconoclast]

So, I guess you reject the term 'Trinity' too?


Yet, Calvin and most Calvinists affirm free will (compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will), but to each his own.

Where is the term 'free moral agent' in the bible? Oh no, you are starting to get too philosophical.

Skan,

Yet, Calvin and most Calvinists affirm free will (compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will), but to each his own.

from what i have read. this is not so...
Bondage of the will-luther
free will a slave-spurgeon
the myth of free will-chantry

http://www.the-highway.com/Myth.html

"To teach that the natural man has a free will overthrows the gospel ... it is precisely because man is in bondage that he needs Christ to set him free." (John 8:34, 36)

"Free-will or Free-grace?; The Bible says that men are born again, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13); that it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy (Rom 9;16); the work of faith is the operation of God according to the exceeding greatness of his power, who works in man both to will and to do of his own good pleasure." (Phil 2:13)

"Free will I have often heard of, but I have never seen it. I have always met with will, and plenty of it, but it has either been led captive by sin or held in the blessed bonds of grace."
- C. H. Spurgeon

"All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance are they that do away with "free-will", and these are countless ... For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because "free-will" can do nothing."
- Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, pg. 270

If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.
- Martin Luther

"...human will does not by liberty obtain grace, but by grace obtains liberty."
- John Calvin


"We are all sinners by nature ,therefore we are held under the yoke of sin . But if the whole man is subject to the dominion of sin , surely the will , which is it's principal seat , must be bound with the closest of chains. And indeed if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not have said that ," it is God that worketh in us to will and to do ' (Phil. 2:13)
- John Calvin

"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70

 

[Skandelon]

I think you missed my point Icon. Never mind.

 

[Benjamin]

No Benjamin...the "system...

No less a philosophical system.

...comes from pastors and teachers who upon examination of the texts

You mean comes from Calvinist pastors and teachers of Calvinist philosophical principles abiding in that system.

...put forth what the texts say

You mean put forth philosophies of what the text mean.

It is really difficult for me to discuss something with someone who denies or fails to recognize common sense logical truth as it stares him in the face while he keeps repeating the same things as if they have not been explained and rebutted. So I’ll pass on this one…

 

[quantumfaith]

No less a philosophical system.



You mean comes from Calvinist pastors and teachers of Calvinist philosophical principles abiding in that system.




You mean put forth philosophies of what the text mean.

It is really difficult for me to discuss something with someone who denies or fails to recognize common sense logical truth as it stares him in the face while he keeps repeating the same things as if they have not been explained and rebutted. So I’ll pass on this one…

Amazing to me how some cannot see that ANY system of thought, interpretation, explanation and so on, falls into this same category as being developed by man. Amazing.

 

[Iconoclast]

Amazing to me how some cannot see that ANY system of thought, interpretation, explanation and so on, falls into this same category as being developed by man. Amazing.

No QF.....it is God given...these men saw it ,and wrote about it in a way that reconciles all the scriptures together.....not just one side of the sword.....

God wants us to study and understand all the truth,or he would not have given it in 66 seperate writings.....of course men are to develop it.

All systems that have been "developed ."are not equal.

 

[Iconoclast]

No less a philosophical system.



You mean comes from Calvinist pastors and teachers of Calvinist philosophical principles abiding in that system.




You mean put forth philosophies of what the text mean.

It is really difficult for me to discuss something with someone who denies or fails to recognize common sense logical truth as it stares him in the face while he keeps repeating the same things as if they have not been explained and rebutted. So I’ll pass on this one…

The only thing that will make you happy is a cage match...with you, skan, winman, van,webdog,....then we throw in Ravi Zacharias.......you can wax philosophical till the cows come home....the rest of us will just discuss scriptural teaching.

 

[quantumfaith]

No QF.....it is God given...these men saw it ,and wrote about it in a way that reconciles all the scriptures together.....not just one side of the sword.....

God wants us to study and understand all the truth,or he would not have given it in 66 seperate writings.....of course men are to develop it.

All systems that have been "developed ."are not equal.

Then you should take caution, because it can sound very much like you (general) can come very close to elevating a system to be on par with scripture itself.

Scripture has the unique quality of (inerrancy, infallibility) not to mention the fact that it is "God Breathed", are you wishing to assign these same qualities to a systematization of scripture?

 

[Aaron]

What does that even mean Aaron? Read over your statement again and maybe you will see how confounding it sounds. Why would God prevent that which he 'subjects?' Foreknowledge presumes permission otherwise what is there to be foreknown?

It also presumes will, if the one who foreknew could have made it otherwise.

As apposed to the supernatural kind?

As opposed to the spiritual kind.[\quote]

Actually it was your assertion that mankind was like God's property while I was attempting to argue that to God mankind is more like our children in regard to their independent will and thus individual culpability.

But mankind IS the work of His hands. Mankind IS God's property. When will you begin to see God as Creator?

The law did not impose the same penalty of eye-for-an-eye if a man smote his property, i.e. his slave. Eye-for-an-eye presumes equality, and God did not create His equals. He will not be judged by you.

The only way you can exonerate God is to bring Him down to your level, take away His omniscience, and THEN He can abide blameless in your system.

God needs no exoneration to the Calvinist.

 

[Aaron]

I say YES, all men are equipped with what is necessary. Some may refer to it as prevenient grace, I say it is part of the imago dei in which ALL men are created.

So you believe in an irresistible work of the Spirit. You simply moved it from conversion to something else.

 

[quantumfaith]

So you believe in an irresistible work of the Spirit. You simply moved it from conversion to something else.

I have always stated that I felt and still do, EVERY person who draws breath of life has what is necessary to have a saving relationship with God. I have always felt that this ability was part of the imago dei.

 

[quantumfaith]

It also presumes will, if the one who foreknew could have made it otherwise.

As opposed to the spiritual kind.[\quote]

But mankind IS the work of His hands. Mankind IS God's property. When will you begin to see God as Creator?

The law did not impose the same penalty of eye-for-an-eye if a man smote his property, i.e. his slave. Eye-for-an-eye presumes equality, and God did not create His equals. He will not be judged by you.

The only way you can exonerate God is to bring Him down to your level, take away His omniscience, and THEN He can abide blameless in your system.

God needs no exoneration to the Calvinist.

Aaron, why is that someone who is obviously intellectually gifted and often defends their position well, such as yourself, feels the need to resort to such erroneous and blatantly misleading charges. No one here fails to see God as creator, no one here takes away the omniscience of God, no one seeks to exonerate God.

 

[preacher4truth]

it is kind of funny...if you notice the k and l are next to each other on the keyboard....looks as if i missed:laugh: JF will be proud of me:laugh:



No Benjamin...the "system comes from pastors and teachers who upon examination of the texts...put forth what the texts say....not what you in a scripturally restricted view ....would prefer them to say...perhaps because you cannot reconcile what the texts actually mean.
If you are wrong with Adam and the fall...you are going to be wrong in many other areas of theology.. That does not make you a bad person, just mistaken.
Some of your smug comments might be another story however.That is a seperate discussion however.

I'd like to see the non-cals, who are accusing our "system" of being "phikosophy" :laugh: to show us exactly what the "phikosophy" parts are in the "system."

I'll show you theirs; At any point when a passage is brought up showing that God is all knowing, they philosophize it away. It simply cannot be, it's not "logical" so in comes philosophy to diminish this truth to a acceptable and suitable level.

Another area they philosophize away is the Scriptural proof of God over all. It cannot be thus, as it is not fitting into their reason, a God so big as this, so they bring it down a few notches with philosophy and reason.

One more? They philosophize away the lost state of mankind. It just cannot be they are so bad off, apparently they must think themselves quite good fellows, so, that it doesn't fit into their reason (or better yet, they won't believe it, they've looked at themselves, how dare them to have ever been in such a state!) so they reason this away as well.

It's not hard to see why all of these things must be brought down a few levels. It's like gossip, it's done so the other fellow looks bigger. I take it John the Baptist wasn't a non-cal; "He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30 Their philosophy? Not so much.

As an apology for Cal views, we simply accept the hard portions of Scripture, and perhaps after much toil concerning these hard truths, yet, we accept the lost state of man as said, and we don't exalt man and choice to the crippling of God to do a thing until we decide, nor exalt man by any means unduly above His lost state as given to us via divine revelation. Then? We worship Sovereign God over all, and all knowing. That would describe our "philosophy."

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

I'd like to see the non-cals, who are accusing our "system" of being "phikosophy" :laugh: to show us exactly what the "phikosophy" parts are in the "system."

I'll show you theirs; At any point when a passage is brought up showing that God is all knowing, they philosophize it away. It simply cannot be, it's not "logical" so in comes philosophy to diminish this truth to a acceptable and suitable level.

Another area they philosophize away is the Scriptural proof of God over all. It cannot be thus, as it is not fitting into their reason, a God so big as this, so they bring it down a few notches with philosophy and reason.

One more? They philosophize away the lost state of mankind. It just cannot be they are so bad off, apparently they must think themselves quite good fellows, so, that it doesn't fit into their reason (or better yet, they won't believe it, they've looked at themselves, how dare them to have ever been in such a state!) so they reason this away as well.

It's not hard to see why all of these things must be brought down a few levels. It's like gossip, it's done so the other fellow looks bigger. I take it John the Baptist wasn't a non-cal; "He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30 Their philosophy? Not so much.

As an apology for Cal views, we simply accept the hard portions of Scripture, and perhaps after much toil concerning these hard truths, yet, we accept the lost state of man as said, and we don't exalt man and choice to the crippling of God to do a thing until we decide, nor exalt man by any means unduly above His lost state as given to us via divine revelation. Then? We worship Sovereign God over all, and all knowing. That would describe our "philosophy."

- Peace

Keep beating the old horse, keep beating. You accept NO more of the scriptures than do we. You toil no more over the truths, principles and interpretation of scripture than we. We do not exalt man over God, but you keep repeating that mantra, sounds almost like the talking points of political commentators. You worship the same God and Savior as do we, your view has God no more sovereign than our view. Philosophy is the "handmaiden" of theology. Ask some of the greatest apologists, they will certainly tell you a study of philosophy is crucial

 

[Skandelon]

It also presumes will, if the one who foreknew could have made it otherwise.

And there you go again presuming the point that is up for debate. Read your statement again Aaron and try to understand. I really don't care if you ever agree with me, but I would like for you to at least grasp the other perspective because I can tell you are a smart individual and have the ability to fairly consider both views. I haven't seen any evidence thus far you have done so.

You are reasoning that if God foreknew something prior to creating it that he MUST have determined it to be, right? Now, you do understand that is the very premise we, as libertarians, reject, right? Now, you may not agree with our rejection of this premise, but nevertheless every time you assume this premise is true you are question begging. For you to engage me in a debate over this premise you need to show biblically where it ever says that God's foreknowledge equals predetermination, and you need to show why the term foreknowledge is used when a more accurate term is available.

Now, the reason I reject your premise is three fold:

(1) The bible never draws this conclusion: The bible uses the term foreknowledge regarding what God merely foreknows, not the term 'predetermination,' and scripture uses the word 'predetermination' in regard to things he has actually predetermined, not the term 'foreknowledge.' I believe words have meaning.

(2) Your premise is based on a logical linear finite causal concept (i.e. if X happened before Y then X must have caused Y); but we are discussing an infinite Being and not one bound by time and its causal laws. (and you accuse me of 'carnal' reasoning)

(3) We both appeal to mystery: Both of our systems appeal to mystery regarding God's dealings with mankind in this regard. The difference is that our system appeals to mystery BEFORE we draw hard conclusions that may impugn the character of God or contradict biblical revelation, while your system only appeals to mystery AFTER concluding that God casually determines evil (using whatever placating terms necessary of course).

But mankind IS the work of His hands. Mankind IS God's property. When will you begin to see God as Creator?

Aaron, I understand that is your premise, but for you not to continue in fallacies and false accusations, you must debate the merits of my premise apart from the assumptions of your system.

You believe God the creator makes property (i.e robots/dogs in the analogy); where as we believe God the creator makes free moral agents with independent wills (i.e. children in the analogy). You attack my premise (that God isn't culpable because like children are independent of their parents, God is independent of free agents) by presuming your premise (that God must be culpable because we are like property--dog/robots), yet all the while you deny divine culpability. You are attacking your own premise, not mine.

God needs no exoneration to the Calvinist.

Well, apparently He does based upon your argument above.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
No QF.....it is God given...these men saw it ,and wrote about it in a way that reconciles all the scriptures together.....not just one side of the sword.....

God wants us to study and understand all the truth,or he would not have given it in 66 seperate writings.....of course men are to develop it.

All systems that have been "developed ."are not equal.

Then you should take caution, because it can sound very much like you (general) can come very close to elevating a system to be on par with scripture itself.

Scripture has the unique quality of (inerrancy, infallibility) not to mention the fact that it is "God Breathed", are you wishing to assign these same qualities to a systematization of scripture?

Exactly why I said to Icon:
"You’re sounding rather cultic to me, Pal."

And:
"You don’t seem to realize that the very system you use to interpret the scriptures within comes from reasoning through philosophical principles about what those scriptures mean. Ironic that you call other’s philosophy “worldly” while you strictly hold to a worldly philosophical system that boxes in and force fits your every interpretation. Yet, in your conceit of your system you dispute and attempt to devalue intelligent reasoning as if you are privileged to be in a state of special spiritual enlightenment regarding your systematic force fitted interpretations."

Have you ever noticed how Icon will resort to red letter writing when he runs out of recourse concerning reasoning? I've remarked to him before that it is "freakish" the way he does this. I think there is something to it. It reminds me of Pentecostals apostates who claim to have special revelations and insight when Calvinists start claiming they don’t need philosophy, that their doctrines are “Gospel”, that their doctrines “are God given and their teachers saw it” and it is very apparent that Icon will jump at every chance to announce that some may have no hope while proudly projecting his Hyper-Determinists (phikosophical) views on election. This specially privileged stuff seems especially prideful while being excessively contrary to the truth of scripture and the messages we should be giving. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge philosophical reasoning to draw out the truth in scripture. Why? I suppose it goes back to this:

I believe any view which displays one does not recognize that God is only Good, Truth and Love reveals that they do not have a relationship with Him that is built in love with Him. Those that attribute evil to Him, whether directly or in a roundabout way, may believe in Him, fear Him, study His word and understand that He is the Only way to salvation, but it is abundantly apparent they don’t know Him or they would know that He is Love in Truth and there is no possibility of evil coming our Loving Father. If one can’t find it in their own heart/conscience why they would freely turn to Him, yet they believe in Him, they have little left to but to declare they had no choice in the matter. Such a belief demonstrates a carnal mindset which is resentful of God’s power and righteous judgment upon all mankind because they struggle to bear the condition of faith from their own heart which only comes from love of the Truth.


It is no wonder those who feel they had no choice in the matter would attempt to proclaim His sovereignty as deterministic, but God is just in His judgment which is conditional upon faith and has declared none will have an excuse and that seems to explain the bitterness.

 

[Iconoclast]

Exactly why I said to Icon:
"You’re sounding rather cultic to me, Pal."

And:
"You don’t seem to realize that the very system you use to interpret the scriptures within comes from reasoning through philosophical principles about what those scriptures mean. Ironic that you call other’s philosophy “worldly” while you strictly hold to a worldly philosophical system that boxes in and force fits your every interpretation. Yet, in your conceit of your system you dispute and attempt to devalue intelligent reasoning as if you are privileged to be in a state of special spiritual enlightenment regarding your systematic force fitted interpretations."

Have you ever noticed how Icon will resort to red letter writing when he runs out of recourse concerning reasoning? I've remarked to him before that it is "freakish" the way he does this. I think there is something to it. It reminds me of Pentecostals apostates who claim to have special revelations and insight when Calvinists start claiming they don’t need philosophy, that their doctrines are “Gospel”, that their doctrines “are God given and their teachers saw it” and it is very apparent that Icon will jump at every chance to announce that some may have no hope while proudly projecting his Hyper-Determinists (phikosophical) views on election. This specially privileged stuff seems especially prideful while being excessively contrary to the truth of scripture and the messages we should be giving. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge philosophical reasoning to draw out the truth in scripture. Why? I suppose it goes back to this:

Attention Cals...put on your secret decoder glasses to get the secret "cultic and freakish red colored " instructions...:laugh:

You can keep your philosophy,,,your ideas of what the gospel is, and your presentation.....I will keep the historic understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints ,as expressed in the historic confessions of the church.

it is very apparent that Icon will jump at every chance to announce that some may have no hope while proudly projecting his Hyper-Determinists (phikosophical) views on election. This specially privileged stuff seems especially prideful while being excessively contrary to the truth of scripture and the messages we should be giving. [/QUOTE]

As you seem fixated on what you perceive as my motives, I will offer an assessment of how you come across to me.
You and your excessive hubris cannot grasp the plain meaning of scripture as it is designed to leave sinners ...no hope.....outside of Christ.
Instead of being concerned about what I might be "jumping at"...you should be more concerned with scripture dealing with the righteous judgement of God...which you avoid at all cost.
Here is an example:

This specially privileged stuff seems especially prideful

This is to speak against God's elective purpose as clearly revealed in scripture. This kind of statement is can only be explained by excessive hubris...as if you know more than the apostles that any teaching of the electing love of God ...has to be understood as... specially privileged stuff.

This denial of the biblical teaching has you substituting your ideas of how God saves people...then offering your puffed up opinions of what should stand in it's place.

God's election, predestination, decree, covenant , are the language of scripture.....this is not:

2) Your premise is based on a logical linear finite causal concept (i.e. if X happened before Y then X must have caused Y

contrary to the truth of scripture and the messages we should be giving

You rarely use the language of scripture. Do you ever use the word ELECT to describe believers, as the apostles did? or are you "Above" using that word?

10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

maybe for you...this is not the message we should be giving
For us who believe and know the truth we take great comfort and rejoice in God's elective decree. I understand your frustration that we enjoy the salvation that God has made known to His sheep......it goes against your worldview ,evidently......to such a point that you must progress to evil speaking in many of your responses.......pal.

 

[Iconoclast]

Then you should take caution, because it can sound very much like you (general) can come very close to elevating a system to be on par with scripture itself.
Scripture has the unique quality of (inerrancy, infallibility) not to mention the fact that it is "God Breathed", are you wishing to assign these same qualities to a systematization of scripture?

QF.......these systems are scripture based to start with. They are not on par with scripture which is perfect in it's original autograph.
We are meant to welcome or receive the truth of scripture. The closer we are and the more accurate we are to it's meaning we have light and truth.

To depart from scripture...go outside of it, then come back to it and import ideas, and philosophy is to error. Joseph Smith and others come to mind.

The historic faith has been around and many of todays heresies have their root in the same old heresies with a new face on them.

are you wishing to assign these same qualities to a systematization of scripture?[/

No...but we need to actually HAVE scripture.....not philosophy....

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

yes God has said.....scripture

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

denial of scripture

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Philosophy in place of scripture....substituted


So how does this look here on BB......

SCRIPTURE:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

denial of scripture......no...he waits until we choose him then he chooses us,or another favorite......he only chooses the church corporately...but no indidvidual....

Then philosophy....... Well God has given us free-will, or it would not be fair...so it could not be as many teach that God elects, or we would be robots......God is ONLY good and if election is true that would be monstrous......I believe in election...but it must be the god limits himself because he is nice and lets us decide what we would like to choose...then he chooses us.He is a gentleman and will not force us.....he chooses us because we first loved him. or we have all we need to choose him...the fall did not kill Adam...just slowed him down a bit...Adam just needs to have a bit more info then he will use inherent faith to save himself ,with an assist from the cross work of Jesus.
:wavey::wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

QF.......these systems are scripture based to start with. They are not on par with scripture which is perfect in it's original autograph.
We are meant to welcome or receive the truth of scripture. The closer we are and the more accurate we are to it's meaning we have light and truth.

To depart from scripture...go outside of it, then come back to it and import ideas, and philosophy is to error. Joseph Smith and others come to mind.

The historic faith has been around and many of todays heresies have their root in the same old heresies with a new face on them.



No...but we need to actually HAVE scripture.....not philosophy....



yes God has said.....scripture
denial of scripture



Philosophy in place of scripture....substituted


So how does this look here on BB......

SCRIPTURE:


denial of scripture......no...he waits until we choose him then he chooses us,or another favorite......he only chooses the church corporately...but no indidvidual....

Then philosophy....... Well God has given us free-will, or it would not be fair...so it could not be as many teach that God elects, or we would be robots......God is ONLY good and if election is true that would be monstrous......I believe in election...but it must be the god limits himself because he is nice and lets us decide what we would like to choose...then he chooses us.He is a gentleman and will not force us.....he chooses us because we first loved him. or we have all we need to choose him...the fall did not kill Adam...just slowed him down a bit...Adam just needs to have a bit more info then he will use inherent faith to save himself ,with an assist from the cross work of Jesus.
:wavey::wavey:

Exactly, the old "corporate" nonsense. You can't separate this to not meaning individuals that make up the body.

As is needed, and one more time the "unfair" needs to be addressed. it all boils down to that premise.

Great answers Iconoclast.

- Peace